Entering rented property (just because you have a key)

Grumpy_chap

RHemmings said:

If your landlord is reasonable, you should be able to sort things out. However, it's far  from guaranteed that your landlord is reasonable. 

I am not sure that the OP's LL is being unreasonable.  It is entirely possible that the OP's LL is being reasonable and the thread arises from a matter of mis-communications / poor expression by the LL.

The OP notes that the two smoke alarms require replacement and has notified the LL accordingly.
The LL has offered to attend on Friday to do this work, so that's reasonable notice.
The LL has also said they will attend to / lubricate a sticky garage door mechanism.  
The OP asked about time, and the LL offered to just attend, quite probably to avoid inconvenience to the OP if the LL thinks the OP is making plans to be in attendance specifically to meet the LL.
Has the OP responded that they would prefer to be present and asked the LL to agree a time accordingly (after the LL mentioned they could let themselves in)?

How would the OP be commenting on the LL if the LL simply refused to fix the smoke alarms?

The OP can, if they wish, exchange the lock barrels and then change them back at the end of the tenancy and / or to facilitate any planned attendances by the LL.

Kittenplump_2

I have absolutely no issue them sorting what they need too. It was more the communication that came across from the LL saying just to let you know we’re coming on Friday, they didn’t ask if it was convenient etc. 

Then when replied asking for a time so my son can be there to give access/ let them in they informed time but said we have a key anyway. That comes across like they are just attending regardless. 

Notice given yes and smoke alarms being changed is important and no issue whatever but the communicated message reads like they are going to attend and didn’t even ask if someone would be here, and if not convenient for someone to be at home. Am I happy for them to let themselves in. 

It just came across like there gonna attend and walk in as didn’t even give an option of when they would be attending. I had to ask. 

ReadySteadyPop

Kittenplump_2 said:

housebuyer143 said:

I think you are being a bit sensitive. Lots of landlords just let themselves in and most people don't care.. If you do, then that's completely fine just reply with something along the lines of "thanks for letting me know, I would prefer someone be at the property rather than you just coming in with the key, so my son will be there to meet you".

Hopefully this also gives them pause for next time they are thinking of just using the key.

A bit sensitive? We have a contract signed and as tenants should not expect landlords to just turn up and let themselves in. It may be their property but it’s courtesy to actually ask if someone is around and just not express they have a key so will come in anyway. We have possession of the property under the contract we have signed. Landlords should just not be letting themselves in! Not just dropping a message informing just to let us know etc. 

They are fitting smoke alarms which could save your life, and also oiling a garage door which they probably don`t need to do, and it is probably illegal for you to be in the flat/house without compliant smoke detectors anyway? I would let this one go TBH.

Tabieth

Another reason I’m so very glad that I no longer rent. The number of people who seem to think it perfectly ok for the landlord to just let themselves in to the property. As a woman who lives alone I always felt vaguely uneasy about the number of people who could access my rental property. Luckily I always had decent landlords who respected boundaries but the feeling was there nonetheless.  This post is an eye opener! 

RHemmings

Grumpy_chap said:

RHemmings said:

If your landlord is reasonable, you should be able to sort things out. However, it's far  from guaranteed that your landlord is reasonable. 

I am not sure that the OP's LL is being unreasonable.  It is entirely possible that the OP's LL is being reasonable and the thread arises from a matter of mis-communications / poor expression by the LL.

The OP notes that the two smoke alarms require replacement and has notified the LL accordingly.
The LL has offered to attend on Friday to do this work, so that's reasonable notice.
The LL has also said they will attend to / lubricate a sticky garage door mechanism.  
The OP asked about time, and the LL offered to just attend, quite probably to avoid inconvenience to the OP if the LL thinks the OP is making plans to be in attendance specifically to meet the LL.
Has the OP responded that they would prefer to be present and asked the LL to agree a time accordingly (after the LL mentioned they could let themselves in)?

How would the OP be commenting on the LL if the LL simply refused to fix the smoke alarms?

The OP can, if they wish, exchange the lock barrels and then change them back at the end of the tenancy and / or to facilitate any planned attendances by the LL.

I think that we don't yet know for sure if the LL is reasonable. 

Asking to come and do the smoke alarms on Friday is reasonable. 

Saying that they have their own key and can let themselves in is a bit worrying, but only because we don't know exactly what they meant. The LL may have been reasonable if they meant 'don't worry if you can't be there and don't put youself out, we can do it anyhow.' Or, they may mean 'we're coming at that time whether you like it or not.' We don't know what the LL meant. 

If the OP suggests that the LL comes at a different, reasonable time, and the LL just goes ahead and turns up at the original time, then that's unreasonable. If the LL agrees to one of the suggested times, or works out something mutually beneficial, then that's reasonable. But, we don't yet know which of these (if either) is most likely. 

If I was in the OP's situation, I might be tempted to politely suggest another time to see what happens. As then the OP will know more about what situation they are in. 

If I had to predict, I'd predict that the LL will be cooperative and reasonable, and not only will this visit pass without incident, I predict that the OP will then have more confidence that they have a good landlord. And the OP and LL will have established a good way of handling situations like this in the future. 

Smalltownhypocrite

saajan_12 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

housebuyer143 said:

I think you are being a bit sensitive. Lots of landlords just let themselves in and most people don't care.. If you do, then that's completely fine just reply with something along the lines of "thanks for letting me know, I would prefer someone be at the property rather than you just coming in with the key, so my son will be there to meet you".

Hopefully this also gives them pause for next time they are thinking of just using the key.

Erm... no they do NOT.

You are not allowed to enter a property unless their is an emergancy situation (fire/flood/gas leak etc...) and notice given is simply a request to enter, you need the tenant agreement/permission.

Do not pretend illegal activity is normal, OP pays for exclusive quiet enjoyment of her property.

Incorrect. The meaning of "notice" is a notification or warning, nothing about requesting and it doesn't change its normal English definition when talking about tenancies. Most ASTs state that the LL CAN enter upon 24 hours notice for reasonable purposes, so permission is already given at that point. If its not to frequent and at reasonable times, then that does not contravene quiet enjoyment. 

Do not pretend normal, legal activity is illegal, OP pays for a property that legitimately needs to be accessed at times. 

You do not understand the law, you cannot enter without permission. Nothing in a contract can override the law. You can write whatever you want into a contract but it does NOT become your legal right. You need court order to enter if the tenant refuses permission to enter.

You (or in this case OPs landlord) have SOLD your rights to enter the property by receiving payment from OP.

By all means call the police when you get there, they will swiftly remove you and tell you not to return not the tenant.

saajan_12

Smalltownhypocrite said:

saajan_12 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

housebuyer143 said:

I think you are being a bit sensitive. Lots of landlords just let themselves in and most people don't care.. If you do, then that's completely fine just reply with something along the lines of "thanks for letting me know, I would prefer someone be at the property rather than you just coming in with the key, so my son will be there to meet you".

Hopefully this also gives them pause for next time they are thinking of just using the key.

Erm... no they do NOT.

You are not allowed to enter a property unless their is an emergancy situation (fire/flood/gas leak etc...) and notice given is simply a request to enter, you need the tenant agreement/permission.

Do not pretend illegal activity is normal, OP pays for exclusive quiet enjoyment of her property.

Incorrect. The meaning of "notice" is a notification or warning, nothing about requesting and it doesn't change its normal English definition when talking about tenancies. Most ASTs state that the LL CAN enter upon 24 hours notice for reasonable purposes, so permission is already given at that point. If its not to frequent and at reasonable times, then that does not contravene quiet enjoyment. 

Do not pretend normal, legal activity is illegal, OP pays for a property that legitimately needs to be accessed at times. 

You do not understand the law, you cannot enter without permission. Nothing in a contract can override the law. You can write whatever you want into a contract but it does NOT become your legal right. You need court order to enter if the tenant refuses permission to enter.

You (or in this case OPs landlord) have SOLD your rights to enter the property by receiving payment from OP.

By all means call the police when you get there, they will swiftly remove you and tell you not to return not the tenant.

No, you don't seem to understand. I agree a contract can't override law, but the point is there's no law that is being overridden by a contractual agreement to REASONABLE access. The tenant has already agreed. 

If it was unreasoanable access eg every other day, middle of the night, for no good reason, then yes THAT would contravene quiet enjoyment, so a contract clause that allowed that would be ignored. That is not what we have here - the LL has given 24 hours notice, its for a necessary safety reason, at a reasonable time of the day. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I don't think OP is bothered by them coming by to fix the smoke alarms, they are wondering if the landlord has a key will they pop by any time they fancy.

If I ever have to rent again I'd be changing the locks. OP if it's a standard Euro lock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9A915L_mlk

Anti bump, drill, pick, etc readily available online, see example below, many websites sell them:

https://www.safe.co.uk/Categories/lock-cylinders/cylsecurity-anti-bump/1.html

Keep the original lock and change it back if you ever move out.

I wouldn't cause friction by doing this immediately, when they come to do the alarms I'd ask if everything else is good and if they have no other planned work in the near future change the locks after they are gone. 

RHemmings

saajan_12 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

saajan_12 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

housebuyer143 said:

I think you are being a bit sensitive. Lots of landlords just let themselves in and most people don't care.. If you do, then that's completely fine just reply with something along the lines of "thanks for letting me know, I would prefer someone be at the property rather than you just coming in with the key, so my son will be there to meet you".

Hopefully this also gives them pause for next time they are thinking of just using the key.

Erm... no they do NOT.

You are not allowed to enter a property unless their is an emergancy situation (fire/flood/gas leak etc...) and notice given is simply a request to enter, you need the tenant agreement/permission.

Do not pretend illegal activity is normal, OP pays for exclusive quiet enjoyment of her property.

Incorrect. The meaning of "notice" is a notification or warning, nothing about requesting and it doesn't change its normal English definition when talking about tenancies. Most ASTs state that the LL CAN enter upon 24 hours notice for reasonable purposes, so permission is already given at that point. If its not to frequent and at reasonable times, then that does not contravene quiet enjoyment. 

Do not pretend normal, legal activity is illegal, OP pays for a property that legitimately needs to be accessed at times. 

You do not understand the law, you cannot enter without permission. Nothing in a contract can override the law. You can write whatever you want into a contract but it does NOT become your legal right. You need court order to enter if the tenant refuses permission to enter.

You (or in this case OPs landlord) have SOLD your rights to enter the property by receiving payment from OP.

By all means call the police when you get there, they will swiftly remove you and tell you not to return not the tenant.

No, you don't seem to understand. I agree a contract can't override law, but the point is there's no law that is being overridden by a contractual agreement to REASONABLE access. The tenant has already agreed. 

If it was unreasoanable access eg every other day, middle of the night, for no good reason, then yes THAT would contravene quiet enjoyment, so a contract clause that allowed that would be ignored. That is not what we have here - the LL has given 24 hours notice, its for a necessary safety reason, at a reasonable time of the day. 

I would say that it's unreasonable and illegal if the landlord attends on a day/time when the tenant has asked them not to attend. If there is no emergency, and the landlord doesn't have a court order. 

(I also think it's unreasonable if the tenant does not act cooperatively with the landlord/agent/workpeople to quickly find a mutually acceptable date/time.) 

Grumpy_chap

RHemmings said:

I think that we don't yet know for sure if the LL is reasonable. 

Asking to come and do the smoke alarms on Friday is reasonable. 

Saying that they have their own key and can let themselves in is a bit worrying, but only because we don't know exactly what they meant. The LL may have been reasonable if they meant 'don't worry if you can't be there and don't put youself out, we can do it anyhow.' Or, they may mean 'we're coming at that time whether you like it or not.' We don't know what the LL meant. 

If the OP suggests that the LL comes at a different, reasonable time, and the LL just goes ahead and turns up at the original time, then that's unreasonable. If the LL agrees to one of the suggested times, or works out something mutually beneficial, then that's reasonable. But, we don't yet know which of these (if either) is most likely. 

If I was in the OP's situation, I might be tempted to politely suggest another time to see what happens. As then the OP will know more about what situation they are in. 

If I had to predict, I'd predict that the LL will be cooperative and reasonable, and not only will this visit pass without incident, I predict that the OP will then have more confidence that they have a good landlord. And the OP and LL will have established a good way of handling situations like this in the future. 

I think the best way to act in any situation like this is to default to the position of the LL (or anyone) being reasonable.
The concerns then arise from a matter of communication / mis-communication.

The OP (and some in the thread) seem to have leapt to the default position that the LL is being unreasonable and seeking to breach the OP's peaceful enjoyment of their home.  (Obviously, all LL's are dishonest, greedy and exploitative.)
The difficulty with that approach is the walls go up when the OP acts defensively and the LL then finds the OP difficult to deal with and the relationship quickly spirals into one of mistrust.

While the OP is writing in this forum here, the LL is probably on some LL forum with a post "Tenant requested work done in the property but now refusing access - what am I to do?"  The the LL gets equally robust comments "the fire alarms are obligatory, get firm and serve notice to attend regardless of the T's wishes."

I am a LL - hopefully the one exception to being dishonest, greedy and exploitative...